Posts
1. In my reading today of Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, Louis Feldman discusses how Josephus attempted to correct the popular Gentile stereotype of Jews as anti-social and clannish. Josephus highlighted the biblical virtues of hospitality and kindness to foreigners. And he either omitted from his history or explained away the parts of the Bible that were xenophobic or religiously intolerant. Surprisingly, he mentions the Conquest and God’s desire that Saul slaughter every living thing in Amalek. For the Conquest, Josephus says it occurred to protect Israel’s ancestral constitution from Canaanite corruption. Regarding the Amalekites, Josephus emphasized the biblical statement that the Israelites were to slaughter the Amalekites as retribution for what Amalek had done to their ancestors. According to Feldman, “The Romans, who had such a high regard for their ancestors, would have appreciated this touch” (121).
I liked what Feldman says about Zeus on pages 122-123:
So important were the rights of the [stranger] that it was Zeus himself…who was regarded as the protector of strangers.
…the Greek readers of Josephus’s text might well have been reminded of the hospitality shown by the poor and pious old couple Philemon and Baucis to Zeus and Hermes, and the reward granted by the gods—namely, that they were saved from the Flood and were granted their prayer that they be together priest and priestess of the temple into which their humble cottage had been transformed (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.611-737).
That reminds me of Hebrews 13:2, which tells us to entertain strangers, because some have entertained angels unawares.
I also liked Josephus’ portrayal of the witch of Endor, who gave Saul food even though she knew that she’d get nothing in return because Saul was about to die. Even a person in a bad profession can do a good deed. Does God take that into consideration? Josephus says that imitating her generosity can influence God to bless us.
2. I started Marvin Pope’s Song of Songs. Pope discusses a view that dates the Song of Songs to the ninth century B.C.E. or before, since Song of Songs 6:4 says that the woman is as beautiful as Tirzah and Jerusalem. Tirzah was the capital of Northern Israel, until Omri made Samaria the capital in 876 B.C.E. And Jerusalem was the capital of Judah. Because Song of Songs 6:4 mentions Tirzah alongside Jerusalem, some have argued, it must have been composed when Tirzah was still the capital of Northern Israel.
On the basis of language, however, many scholars date Song of Songs to the third century B.C.E. But some of them acknowledge that the Song can have older elements, such as the reference to Tirzah in Song of Songs 6:4.
But Pope quotes a scholar who doesn’t believe that the Hebrew of the Song of Songs reflects a late date. On pages 31-32, he refers to Rabin, who has problems with the argument that the Hebrew particle sh- (“that”) in Song of Songs shows it is late because sh- is mostly found in later Hebrew. Rabin notes that the particle also appears in an old song, the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:7), so “It is not impossible…that our entire system of linguistic criteria for the dating of Hebrew texts needs revision…”
3. I started John van Seters’ A Law Book for the Diaspora, which is about the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:19-23:33).
I had a conversation with John Hobbins on slavery in the Torah, which you can read under his post, Slavery in the Bible and the Talmud. (John has just started a series on the issue, which should prove informative.) John’s argument (as I understand it) is that the Covenant Code pre-dates Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and is less innovative in its relationship with ancient Near Eastern law on the issue of slavery. Deuteronomy and parts of Leviticus, however, are more progressive on the issue.
As Hobbins notes, most scholars believe that the Covenant Code is earlier than Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Paul Hanson, in The People Called, sees in Deuteronomy a movement towards liberation, one that values the dignity of slaves. Deuteronomy is also considered to be more progressive and inclusive than the Covenant Code on gender.
It is this consensus that Van Seters is challenging. He argues that the Covenant Code is later than Deuteronomy, and he also contends that the Covenant Code was written for Jews in exile. This will be an interesting read!
I’m reminded of a discussion in a class at Hebrew Union College that I was auditing, the subject of which was social justice in the Bible and the ancient Near East. A rabbinic student suggested that the Covenant Code’s law on the liberation of slaves could’ve come after the more progressive law in Deuteronomy, since a later writer could’ve had problems with how Deuteronomy was allowing male and female slaves to go free, at great cost to the master, who had to give the slave some riches when he became free. Perhaps the author of the Covenant Code thought that such a law was impractical.
I’d like to think that there’s religious evolution in the Bible—that people learn more and more in their relationship with God and change for the better, that there is indeed progressive revelation. But can I take that for granted? In the New Testament, Jesus and Paul are rather inclusive towards women. But the author of I-II Timothy, whom scholars date later, was much more restrictive. Does progress come with time? Not necessarily. And that’s why there are people who want to go back to the roots of the church, who think earlier is better.
4. On page 125 of A History of Education in Antiquity, H.I. Marrou says that medical literature in the Roman era prescribed walking on tip-toes as a cure for constipation. I’ll try to remember that, in case I have that problem!
